Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Shepard Accelerated School in my district for being named a national Blue Ribbon School recipient. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program identifies and gives national recognition to a diverse group of public and private schools that are unusually effective in meeting local, State, and national goals and in educating all of their students. The program seeks to promote school improvement nationwide through the collaborative self-evaluation required of local school communities that participate. In addition, recognized schools serve as models for other schools and communities seeking to provide high quality education for all their students. Shepard Accelerated School was one of only 264 schools across the United States recognized as a Blue Ribbon School. Now, you might think that sounds like a lot of schools. But think about this--there are about 76,000 public and private elementary and middle schools in America. That means that one out of every 288 elementary and middle schools in the entire United States has been named a Blue Ribbon School for 1997. And I'm pleased that Shepard Accelerated School right here in St. Louis, MO, is one of those schools. To qualify for this award, I know Shepard went through rigorous reviews by some of the Nation's leading educators. The school impressed everybody and they deserve the highest praise for that. The innovative programs and supportive community Shepard has established truly demonstrate the importance of a positive learning environment. Shepard Accelerated School has a shared purpose among faculty, students, and parents to improve the education of the 600 children who attend. I am proud of Shepard for being named a national Blue Ribbon School recipient. Ms. Savannah Young, all the teachers, and especially the students should be saluted for their dedication to high standards and excellence in teaching and learning. Congratulations Shepard Accelerated School.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to be among 150 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives who have joined to introduce the Employment Non-Discrimination Act [ENDA] of 1997. This legislation will extend to gay and lesbian Americans the same employment protections guaranteed to all other Americans without creating special rights or quotas. It is intolerable that in 39 States hard working women and men can be fired or turned down for a job just because of their sexual orientation. No woman should have to worry about receiving a pink slip because she is gay. No man should be denied a position or a promotion simply because he is gay. America is blessed with a diverse people and America works best when everyone is allowed to contribute to his or her fullest potential. As a nation, we take pride in our sense of fairness, and in fairness to all Americans it is time to put an end to all forms of employment discrimination. The time has come for the Congress of the United States to provide assurance to every American that his or her opportunity to get a job and to keep a job will be based on their abilities, not on their sexual orientation. Almost 70 percent of American voters believe that is the right thing to do and Congress should act accordingly. Last year, ENDA supporters were heartened by the near passage of the bill in the Senate. That the Senate vote on ENDA was 49-50, coupled with the fact that today there are 150 original ENDA cosponsors in the House--compared to 139 cosponsors in the last Congress--is proof that progress is indeed being made. Increasing support for and ultimately enacting ENDA will build upon our Nation's legacy of ensuring fairness in the workplace. We have outlawed employment discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, or disability. Let us now take the next important step. I urge my colleagues to lend their support to this legislation so we can make it law in the 105th Congress.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 60, and I urge its adoption by the House of Representatives. Two years ago, I joined many others in the Capitol rotunda to commemorate the 3,000th anniversary of the founding of the city of Jerusalem. It is in the spirit of that powerful ceremony, and in the spirit of Jerusalem itself, that I rise today in support of this resolution. There is no question that Jerusalem is among the most important sites of modern civilization--a triumph of faith and freedom not just for the Jewish people, but for all people. And although people have fought over Jerusalem for thousands of years, today it stands as a city of peace, in which different races and religious faiths live together. That is why Jerusalem should remain an undivided city, and be recognized as the capital of Israel. After all, Jerusalem embodies the very notions of liberty, justice, and freedom from persecution upon which Israel was founded. And it is only fitting that the holiest city in the world be celebrated as the center of the Jewish people, who have strived for so long simply to be able to express their faith freely and openly. That's why I supported and Congress passed legislation in 1995 to move the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Today's resolution reiterates the message we delivered in 1995 and which the Congress has expressed in prior years. We must be clear, however, that it is not enough simply to celebrate the past 3,000 years of Jerusalem's existence, or its past 30 years as an undivided city. We must seek to keep Israel and Jerusalem strong for the next 3,000 years. That's part of what the Middle East peace process is all about--and what the United States' unwavering support for Israel is all about. In closing, I congratulate the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the 30th anniversary of that city's reunification, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, thousands of optometrists from across the nation will convene in my hometown of St. Louis, June 11-15, for the Centennial Congress of the American Optometric Association [AOA]. It is fitting that this milestone event be held in St. Louis because it has been the home of the AOA since 1953. Optometry's roots date back to the ancient Greeks and their study of the mechanics of vision. In 1898, the evolving profession of optometry in the United States began to coalesce with the first meeting of the American Association of Opticians. The association had a charter membership of 183 members representing 31 States. The association adopted the use of the term optometrist in 1903, and in 1918 changes its name to the American Optometric Association. Since those early days, optometry has grown into a dynamic health care profession with nearly 31,000 practicing optometrist in more than 4,000 cities and towns spanning the U.S. Optometry encompasses the care of the eye and vision system through the diagnosis, treatment and management of eye diseases and vision disorders. The theme of this year's conference is ``A Celebration of Sight.'' In addition to an extensive program of continuing education and the consideration of policy resolutions, the AOA will be electing a new president. Taking over as the association's 76th president will be Dr. Michael D. Jones of Athens, TN. He will be succeeding Dr. T. Joel Byars from McDonough, GA. I would like to ask my colleagues to join in saluting the American Optometric Association on the occasion of its Centennial Congress.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly this afternoon to state that I will not vote for this budget, but before giving Members the reasons for that, I want to commend the Members on both sides of the aisle. I especially want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. John Spratt], and I want to commend the President for working so hard to bring about this agreement, which is an important achievement for our country. Having done this in 1990 and again in 1993, I know how hard it is. I know how many compromises have to be made and how many decisions have to be made to make something like this come together. But at the end of it, it is a decision on this budget that each of us must make for what is best for our constituents, the 500,000 people that each of us represents and what in our hearts and minds is best for them and best for the country. I would like to start with a little history of why we are where we are. This all started, in my view, back in 1981. Congress then, in a bipartisan way, made a decision on a budget that had certain increases in spending and tax cuts, which many of us said at the time would create large deficits out in the future. The prediction was that there would be deficits of $100 and $200 and $300 billion. And unfortunately those predictions came true. It has taken us 17 years from that basic decision in 1981 to get on the threshold of being able to balance the budget. In 1990, we entered into a bipartisan budget agreement, much like has been done now, and at the time we raised taxes and we cut spending in a bipartisan way, and we made a big step, about a $500 billion deficit reduction. We did that again in 1993; I might add, at that time, with all Democratic votes, not one vote from the other side of the aisle. At the time many Republican leaders said they believed that budget we passed in 1993 would wreck the economy and would cause higher unemployment and higher deficits. I want to point out that because of the interaction of what we do on the deficit and what it does with the economy, that indeed those forecasts were wrong, that even with tax increases and spending cuts, we have had a remarkable economic performance in the last 4 or 5 years. In fact, in 1993, the prediction was the deficit for this year would be $300 billion. A year ago the prediction was the deficit would be $169 billion. In January of this year, we thought the deficit for this year would be $124 billion. Just last week CBO said it is down to $67 billion. There is an interaction, there is an inextricable link between the deficit and what we do and how we get rid of the deficit and what happens in the economy. And I believe that the investments we made in education and in capital investment and in health care that we made in the deficit reduction act of 1993 were an integral part of helping the private sector economy grow over the last 5 years so that we have had real economic growth and more revenue coming into the government. So the question then and now is not whether to do this, it is how we do it. It is how we do it. What are the myriad of decisions, what are the texture of the decisions we put together to try to get the budget into order. In my view, this budget agreement is a budget of many deficits: a deficit of principle, a deficit of fairness, a deficit of tax justice, and worst of all, a deficit of dollars. First, I think it is unfair. I think that when we have done these budgets, we have always tried to have shared sacrifice. We have said to the American people in the highest sense of patriotism that everybody has to sacrifice in order to get the budget straightened out. That is what we did in 1990. That is what we did in 1993. That is not what this budget does. Recently I was going door to door in my district. I met a young couple who had just bought a house. They were happy because the wife had just gotten pregnant and they were expecting this new family. I asked them what their concerns were. They said their concern was that between them they have 5 jobs, 5 jobs. That is kind of the way the economy is working for ordinary Americans today. In order to make ends meet, people have to work more jobs and more hours. And the woman said to me, ``You know, our concern is that when the baby comes, I would like to stay home and raise the child for 2 or 3 years, but with 5 jobs, I have got to quit two of those jobs to do it. And if we do that, we cannot make our house payment.'' That is reality 1997. On another door-to-door trip in my district I met a woman who was on Social Security and Medicare. She said, ``You know, I do not want to be a whiner, and I do not want to complain, but I only get $450 a month. And I have got to buy a lot of prescription drugs to stay going. I just want you to know, I cannot pay my water bill now, and I do not have hot water. And if I have cuts along the way in Medicare or Social Security, I may lose the apartment I am staying in''. That is reality 1997. This budget could have done better by either of those people I have talked about. We could have done more in this budget on Head Start, on after school programs for that family I am talking about. We could have done better for that senior citizen so she could get by better. But in this budget there is structured a tax cut. And if I am reading the agreement between the parties correctly, that tax cut will necessarily result in the top 1 percent of taxpayers in this country getting a tax reduction of about $6,000. And when I talk about the top 1 percent, I am talking about folks making an average of $650,000 a year. Is it shared sacrifice to say to them, you get a huge tax cut every year, $6,000, but the young family who is trying to make ends meet, we cannot help them enough? We cannot give them a larger tax cut. We cannot give them the kind of help that they need getting through their life every day. It is not fair. I wish it were fairer. Second, I think it fails to invest in the future. What do I mean by that? We are in a tough global competition. We have got our work cut out for us. We have to really be good. I agree, we need tax cuts, but they ought to go to the people who need them, desperately need them. And they ought to go to the people who are working hard every day to compete in that global economy. But we also need investments in this budget. Let me just name three to take examples. First, education. Everybody knows we have got to have better educated people to compete in the global economy, to get productivity increases, to get growth increases. Early on in the budget talks we talked about repairing school buildings and putting money into the structures in which our children learn. That was thrown out of the budget. We did not have enough money to do that. We talked endlessly in this Chamber about Head Start, about investing in the smallest, youngest children. We talked about Head Start zero to three. We just had a conference in the White House where we find that late mental research proves that the more you can do with young, young, young children, the better the result will be. But this budget does not fully fund Head Start and does not even make a beginning on Head Start zero to three. Let us talk about children's health, a very good part of this budget, $15 billion, to try to get half the children who do not have health care to have health care. But in the very same budget there is about an equal cut in Medicaid in what is called disproportionate share, a fancy name for trying to give money to hospitals that have a disproportionate share of poverty folks coming there to get help. Guess which hospitals get the lion's share of disproportionate share? The children's hospitals. We give with one hand; we take away with another. It is not good enough. Third, investment in the capital investments. We hear about capital gains. What about capital structures? Billions of dollars come into this budget every year from the gasoline tax to the Federal highway trust fund and every year we spend moneys for these needed structures, but we never spend what comes in. And this budget does not either. In my district of St. Louis, our city fathers and mothers got together and said, what does this region need? They came up with $20 billion worth of needs in St. Louis for capital investment alone. They have no idea where it is going to come from. We can do better in investing in our future. Third, this budget does not come into balance. I believe with all my heart that the people who worked on it want it to come into balance. And I hope it does, but let me say something. If we have exploding tax cuts that are put into law and they are not met with spending cuts that will be designed to reach them, then the numbers are not going to work. Remember 1981 and what happened. The last thing we need to do is to advertise this as a deficit reduction plan that will reduce the deficit and then we do not get there. The coalition members wanted to go to the floor this afternoon and have an amendment that had an enforcement process that said, if the numbers do not work for any reason, because the economy does not work or something else, that we will start cutting across the board both spending programs and tax programs in order to see that we really get the balance that we want and that we have advertised. That is not going to be allowed to even be voted on. In conclusion, I do not believe this budget is fair. I do not believe it invests properly in the future of our country and our economy and our people. I do not believe the numbers will work, and I do not think there is a system in place to make sure that they do. Let me say this final word. This is a decision and it is a hard decision that all of us have to make. For me, as I cast this vote, I have one thing in my mind and one thing only, and that is the people that I represent in the third District of Missouri. I have in my mind that young family who is working hard, real hard every day and wants to make ends meet and wants to have a future. I have in my mind that senior citizen who wants to stay out of the nursing home and stay in her home and live the life of independence that she wants. I have in mind the children, the children who are the future and the strength and the greatest resource of this country. Each of us in our own way, as we go through this debate and vote tonight, has to ask ourselves, what is the right thing for my constituents and for my country? Nothing else is asked. That is the question we have to answer. This is not politics. This is not some election. This is about the future of the country and what in our conscience, our heart and our mind is the best and right thing to do. I will vote against this budget. I think we can do better.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this Democratic amendment to the Juvenile Crime Control Act because it accomplishes what the Republican bill does not: It heeds the cry of law enforcement officers who are asking for help at the local level, in the precinct and on the beat, and it adheres to the values that make our communities safe and our families strong. It provides the resources to those who are on the front lines of law enforcement, at the local level: the police officer, district judges, and DA's and community leaders who are rallying together to stop the scourge of gang violence and drugs in their streets. It confronts the tragedy of juvenile crime through a balanced approach of tough enforcement and smart intervention and prevention. The Republican bill is weak on crime because it starts at the jail- house door. The bill that Republicans present to us today fails on several accounts: It is extreme in treating children as adults in the Federal juvenile justice system--it offers no assistance to local law enforcement unless they get in line with the new federalism forced on local jurisdictions as proscribed by Republican criteria--and, finally, it is unbalanced because it ignores what law-enforcement officials have been telling us for years: if you want to curb juvenile crime, you've got to be tough, you've got to be fair, and you've got to be hands-on, child-by-child to intervene before they experiment with drugs and join gangs and prevent them from becoming another fatality of a justice system that has been designed by political sound-byte rather than a smart and effective anticrime strategy. The first question we have to ask ourselves, as a society, as parents, as human beings, is this: Do we want a system of justice that places the highest premium on warehousing juvenile offenders, in jails which propagate further criminal behavior, or do we want to provide local communities and law enforcement with the ability to put in place the mechanisms to help us as a society, deal with the reasons that lead our kids to use drugs and join gangs, because they have grown up in a situation where they have nowhere else to turn? It ignores what is going on with our kids. Every day in America, 5,711 juveniles are arrested--more than 300 children are arrested for violent crimes. Every day, more than 13,000 students are suspended from public schools and more than 3,300 high school students drop out altogether. Drug use is on the rise for 13 to 18-year-olds, violent gang-related crimes are being committed by hardened juvenile criminals, and teen pregnancy is still a major problem. But I would argue that these are indirect social costs of something deeper and more pervasive that is going on. When you consider what is happening to our communities and the family, when you consider that there are no safe havens for many kids who are literally growing in communities that are under fire from gang activity and drug trafficking, you come to a different place in this debate. At a time when child care experts are telling us that the formative years of a child's life determines whether that child will be well- balanced or emotionally challenged for the remainder of his or her life, we need to pay attention to the environment in which our children are growing up in: Kids go to schools shadowed by hunger because they haven't had a proper breakfast, they are sent to second-rate, crumbling schools that are dangerous to their health and contrary to a positive learning environment, they go home each night in many cases without adult supervision are left to fend for themselves. And the younger kids are often left in understaffed day-care facilities that operate like kennels. Our kids need to learn responsibility and respect. They need to learn how to make smart, good choices in a world full of bad ones. But how can they when all of the odds are stacked against them? We can't afford to play these odds any more--our children, our futures are at stake. This is not about codding hardened criminals that lack a conscience and who take it out on innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. This is not about giving a break to children because they are children, when they are killing other children. This is about giving the people who must apprehend, prosecute, and sentence these juveniles--the ability to hold these children accountable for their actions, and giving them a choice in how they will do that. This gives communities the ability to get to these kids before they ruin their lives and the lives of those around them. This gives families the means to prevent their kids from becoming both the victims of as well as the perpetrator of crimes, this gives kids the opportunity to choose another path. We call for a zero-tolerance policy toward gang activity. We taught juvenile delinquents who commit violent crimes and crimes involving firearms. We provide resources for local communities to hire more police to prevent juvenile crime, more drug intervention efforts to provide drug treatment, education, and enforcement. And we provide resources to localities to set up antigang police units and task forces. When Democrats first designed this approach in our families first agenda last year, we talked to the people who are most affected by crime: Average working families in neighborhoods all across this great Nation. They told us this is what they wanted to help them deal locally with the threats that face them and their children. Let us give the people what they are asking for today, let us give them a balanced approach to juvenile justice, give us your vote on the Stupak-Stenholm- Lofgren-Scott substitute.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill today. The title of the bill or the phrase that is used to describe the bill makes it sound like a very appealing idea, the idea that workers should have the ability to have flex time to be able to change hours, to be able to have more time with their families. But when we examine the bill closely, we realize what is really happening here is a shift of power from workers to some employers; and I would never, ever say all employers, because there are many employers today, who as a matter of policy in their own business, allow flex time and work with employees to work out a way that they can spend more time with their families, but what is happening in this bill is a shift in power to those employers who want to use this as a way to get pay levels down through not paying overtime pay. The biggest shift that has happened in our society in probably 100 years is not the television, it is not even the airplane or the computer, it is the lack of time that adults have to raise their children. So this bill could have been a bill that would be very positive in moving us in the right direction. It does not do that. I am sorry it does not do that. I wish it did do that. If it did that, I would be for it. But it moves us in a direction that we ought not to be going. It moves us in the direction of allowing some employers who would want to use it in that way to reduce the amount of overtime pay going to employees, and not letting employees have any say in that decision. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote against this bill. I think we can do much better than this. The Family Leave Act should be amended. We should be moving in that direction. That is a very positive way to go. That leaves it within the power of employees to make those decisions. But this bill would move us in exactly the wrong direction in, again, an area that is probably more important to people than anything I can think of. Adults spend one-third less time with children today than they did 20 years ago. We have to do something about it. This bill is not the best way to do it. I urge Members to oppose this bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this bill today--because it is a betrayal of the hardworking American families who endeavor daily to earn enough to feed and care for their children and keep a decent roof over their heads. Working families, because of this bill, will find that their everyday struggles will soon be repaid with time off, no pay, all at the convenience of their employers. Where I come from they call that a furlough. I would caution everyone listening to this debate today, not to get caught up in the well-meaning, well-intentioned rhetoric of providing flexibility to hard-pressed workers who need time off to care for their families. This bill sounds like a remedy for working families, but is in fact an ill-advised panacea that will have the effect of denying workers a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. We already know that there is a problem in the American work force of employees getting shortchanged by their employers. One business group, the Employment Policy Foundation, estimates that workers are currently being cheated out of $19 billion a year in overtime pay. One in ten of every American workers who is entitled to overtime pay do not get what they earned. And now we are asked to pass a bill that will empower businesses to make their workers work longer hours, with even less pay and have less flexibility than they have now to take time off. How can we say this helps working families? Our Republican colleagues have already missed one opportunity today to truly help working families by denying our efforts to consider the Democratic family leave bill which makes available to parents federally protected leave for family concerns like routine doctor visits and parent-teacher conferences. If you are truly sincere in your pledge to help working families you will set aside this raid on working Americans' paychecks and reconsider your opposition to expanded family medical leave. This is a proven, successful policy enacted by Democratic votes, opposed by Republican voices, which has already helped 12 million Americans to lessen the pain and anguish in the face of a family crisis. Now let us give those families the comfort of knowing they can go to their child's school to check on his or her progress with their teachers or to the family doctor when their children or elderly parents need attention even if it is not life- threatening. I have talked with working mothers who have to fib to their bosses to get time off just to pick their children up when they get out of school early. Others tell me they actually have to take their sick children with them to the workplace when they are too ill to go to school because there is no one to stay home and care for them. These families need to be given options to deal with their daily problems. This bill does not offer these families a real choice. Instead of giving flexibility to workers, it gives new flexibility to employers. It does not allow employees to use comp time when the employee needs it. Where, in a proposal that would imposes new pressures on low-wage hourly workers--most of whom are women--to give up overtime pay upon which they rely to make ends meet, is there compassion for those mothers who have to make day-by-day decisions as they balance choices between caring for their a families and providing a decent standard of living for them? Today, we need to make the compassionate and sensible choice by rejecting this bill, the Republican Paycheck Reduction Act, and work to produce an agenda that puts the working family before the corporate personnel officer who is looking at the bottom line. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to second the thought that the Speaker just made on the floor about the bipartisan retreat that happened this weekend in Hershey. It was a historic event, the only time that I know that Members from both sides of the aisle and their families have had a chance to take a 2-day period to understand how we could better work together to solve the problems that we are all sworn to try to solve for the American people. I think it succeeded, if for no other reason that human relationships were established that had not been established before. There has been tremendous turnover in the House. We have many, many new Members who do not know one another, and certainly older Members who do not know younger Members who have come in the last few years. I think those relationships were begun. David McCullough, the noted historian, gave a speech on the first afternoon that we arrived in Hershey that I will never forget, and I urge all Members to get a copy of the speech and read it. He reminded us of how difficult it was in the early history of the Congress to work together, how many times altercations broke out between Members, how difficult it was to find consensus, and how negative people were about the future of the Congress and the country. We have come a long way; we have a long way to go. Hershey is a beginning. From the Democratic side, I pledge our best efforts to carry the spirit of that meeting forward with tangible results in trying to work together better in a variety of ways. I thank all the Members who came, and I urge the House to entertain the idea of having a succeeding event for Members who could not come so that everyone can begin to show progress in this very important regard. I think the Speaker for allowing me to speak, and I look forward to being able to work on the projects that were begun in Hershey.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the committee's resolution and against the Hastert amendment. I have to say that I come to this floor reluctantly. I regret that I and many other Members find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to support the decertification and waiver for Mexico as an ally in the drug war. Over the last several weeks, Democrats and Republicans working together authored legislation that would decertify, but waive sanctions. I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] for their hard work. The bill also includes language requiring that the administration begin to consult and work with Congress in addressing the problem facing both of our countries with regard to drugs. There are many who oppose this effort and I deeply respect their opinions. But I believe that under the law, we have to respond, and the response that I think has to be given is decertification, but waiver. I hope that in the days ahead we get a chance to consider changing the underlying law. I am uncomfortable with certifying or decertifying Colombia or Mexico or other countries, or our own efforts with regard to the war against drugs. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership yesterday chose to allow an amendment to be offered that gratuitously attacks the President's actions to address the problem of drugs in this country. To me, this is simply an effort to gain partisan advantage from the fear that we all share about the impact of drugs in our country. The war on drugs should not be a political football. Parents across America deserve to know that their leaders are working together to solve these problems. They want to be able to send their kids to school and to play with their friends free from the fear that drugs will be offered. The question before us today is whether or not Mexico has fully cooperated to fight the war on drugs. This is not a question of motive. It is a question of fact. I deeply respect those who are valiantly fighting against the drug lords and cartels in Mexico. Many valiant police officers and prosecutors and government officials in Mexico are giving their lives and fighting on a daily basis to stop this problem. They must be honored in all that we do. Mostly, we cannot validate the status quo. None of us can be satisfied with what we are doing, what America is doing, what Mexico is doing, what Colombia is doing, what we are all doing to fight this problem of drugs. It is an evil influence that is stalking our people. What we are doing is not working. Blame is everywhere. I hope that if nothing else comes out of this debate and this action today, that in the days ahead we can find new ways and more effective ways of fighting this problem of drugs. If all we do today is place blame, we have failed again. If what comes out of today is renewed vigor and enthusiasm to fight this problem in Mexico and to fight it in the United States, then this will have been a day well spent. I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], my friend, and the other members of our caucus who have worked on this. I congratulate the ranking member, I congratulate the chairman, and I hope that we will come out of this today with a renewed sense of purpose to work together to solve the problem and to change the facts of today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, the world's population is growing by 90 million every year--that is the equivalent of adding the entire population of Mexico every year. Family planning is critical for the survival of the planet and the people on it. Overpopulation leads to the suffering of women and innocent children, poverty, and war. There is an unfortunate tendency in this country to reduce important debates concerning reproductive issues to the labels ``pro-choice'' and ``pro-life.'' We will ill serve the citizens of this country and the world if we allow this vote today to fall victim to these labels. First, there is evidence that without family planning, the number of abortions increases. And second, today what we are really doing is voting to ensure that there will continue to be humane and responsible efforts through voluntary family planning services so that the people who live on this planet can live with decency and dignity. The United States has a moral obligation to lead the effort to control population responsibly. And I believe, therefore, that the moral vote today is a vote for the President's resolution.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would agree that we believe on the Democratic side, I think, with our friends on the Republican side that there needs to be a complete review of the ethics process with a view toward recommending changes to the whole body, that the body might considerate at some point in the future. We also agree that there should be six Members, one ex officio and five other Members. In that connection, I today am appointing the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] to be our cochair, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] to be part of this bipartisan task force. We are also asking the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman] to be ex-officio, as he will be our recommended ranking member on the permanent Ethics Committee. So we will be joining with the majority leader in the unanimous consent request for their appointment and for the understanding that there will not be a filing of ethics complaints for this, I believe to be, 65-day period in which this group should be doing its work. I thank the gentleman and Members on his side for working with us on this process. I think it is an important step forward in working together to improve the ethics process for the body. I look forward to receiving recommendations from this group.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with my colleagues in celebration of African American History month. The theme for this year's African American History Month Observance is ``African Americans and Civil Rights: A Reappraisal.'' When we reappraise we take stock, we review, and we measure the value of the item in question. As we reappraise the civil rights laws that we have passed in this body, laws that have helped realize for many of our citizens the promise of equal opportunity embodied in our constitution, I can say without question that they have appreciated in value and are worth more today to our Nation and our people than they were 30 years ago. They are of greater value because we can look back and see how far we have come and recognize that we are a better Nation because of the existence of these laws. Thirty years ago as the fog of racial oppression was only beginning to clear we could not have made such an assessment. As we made this reappraisal of civil rights we also mark an important anniversary. It was 15 years ago that we passed the 1982 major improvements to the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 which extended and strengthened the enforcement provisions of the law. Some have described the Voting Rights Act as our Nation's most effective civil rights legislation, and I count myself among that group. I consider the votes that I have cast in support of the extension of the Voting Rights Act among the most important votes of my 20 years in Congress. Because of the Voting Rights Act there has been a dramatic increase in the participation of African Americans and other minorities in the electoral process at all levels of government. As a result of the Voting Rights Act African American voting participation in some congressional districts has increased by tenfold. I look around this institution and I see the power of the Voting Rights Act. Today there are 39 African American members of this body and if we were to poll them I believe they would tell us that their presence here is due in no small measure to the Voting Rights Act. One of those members is Bill Clay who in his 28 years of congressional service is the dean of the Missouri Congressional Delegation. He was a civil rights leader in St. Louis, our home town, during the struggles of the 1950's and 60's, and he is my leader in the Missouri delegation. I have had the pleasure of serving with Bill for all the years that I have been a member of this body. This institution is a better place because of the presence of Bill Clay and the other African American members of the 105h Congress and those who have come before them, and we are a better nation because of the Voting Rights Act. In addition to Bill Clay, who was the first African American Member of Congress from Missouri, I would also like to recognize another civil rights leader from St. Louis. In 1977, Gwen B. Giles became the first African American woman elected to the Missouri Senate and the first woman elected to the office of city assessor in St. Louis. Mrs. Giles was a tireless advocate for civil rights and for the rights of the disadvantaged. As an elected official and in her roles as executive secretary of the St. Louis Council of Human Relation, Director of the Civil Rights Enforcement Agency and as a founder of the West End Community Assoc., Mrs. Giles was a builder of community between the races. Mrs. Giles died on March 26, 1986, but she remains a pioneering spirit in St. Louis for her dedication to the principle and the practice of equality for all citizens. Today, I honor her historical achievements and contributions as well as those of other African Americans in Missouri and throughout our Nation. We celebrate this anniversary of the Voting Rights Act and we commemorate African-American History Month as we approach a new century at the crossroads of civil rights and race relations in our nation. There are those who look at the gains that African-Americans have made in the ballot box, in employment, in business and in education, and they no longer recognize the need for vigorous enforcement of our civil rights laws. They tolerate both direct and indirect attacks on the cornerstones of our most monumental civil rights achievement. We have seen these attacks take many forms. From the wholesale attacks on affirmative action to the more subtle and strategic strikes against the Voting Rights Act through the recent court challenges to minority congressional districts, these attacks have the collective impact of moving us backward toward our past of racial intolerance rather than forward toward the promise of the new century. They could not be more wrong. For those of you who say you support our civil rights laws in principle but through inaction dilute their effectiveness and drive wedges that further racial division and hostility, today I challenge each of you to make your deeds match your rhetoric. I challenge you to stop pulling at the dangling threads of intolerance that threaten to unravel the great blanket of civil rights protections we have all worked so diligently to weave. As we make this reappraisal of civil rights in this month that we celebrate black history, we must all recommit ourselves to supporting the enforcement of our civil rights laws. We cannot fail to leave this important legacy intact and of greater value to those who may stand in this place 30 years from today and make a similar reappraisal.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I will be brief. In that the Republicans have retained their majority in the House and I did not get enough votes, it is my responsibility to hand the gavel to the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 6) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 10) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 11) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to condemn the recent attack on the ecumenical patriarchate in Istanbul, Turkey. On September 30, a hand grenade and machinegun fire were directed at the ecumenical patriarchate in Istanbul. The home of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, this site serves as the headquarters of Orthodox Christianity for over 300 million worshipers worldwide. The damage from this attack is reported to have been extensive, having blown out windows of the Patriarchal Cathedral of St. George and the sleeping quarters of His All Holiness and others in the compound. Terrorist attacks such as this should be condemned by all, and must be tolerated by none. The targeting of a religious compound serves as a disturbing reminder of the extent to which the practitioners of terror will go to achieve their aims, and should cause us to redouble our efforts against those who seek gains through destruction and violence against innocent individuals. I urge the Turkish authorities to investigate and seek justice against the perpetrators of this deplorable act. I extend my support to Patriarch Bartholomew and Orthodox Christians throughout the world as you seek to restore the ecumenical patriarchate and continue to express your faith in peace.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, in a few short moments I believe this House of Representatives will vote to raise the minimum wage, which is at a 40-year low. It is severely impacting, in a negative way, American families. I realize that for many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle this is a difficult vote to cast. Even for some who will support this increase, this is a vote of resignation, not one of joy. But while this might not be an easy vote for some of you, I believe with all my heart that this is the right vote and probably the most important vote of this Congress. Let us put aside this morning all the ideology, all the partisan differences, all of the political argument, and let us put one thing and one thing only in our mind today, which is what the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] talked about: That is American families that are living day-by-day today on the minimum wage. I had a woman in my district recently, as I went door-to-door, tell me that she had two minimum wage jobs, worked 16 hours a day, two children. She said, ``Congressman, I cannot pay my bills. But that is not what I am worried about. That is my problem.'' She said, ``What I am worried about is that I am never home to raise my children.'' She welled up as she talked about her failure of responsibility to raise her children to be productive citizens. She said, ``I am not worried that they will be victims of crime, I am even worried they will commit crimes.'' It went through me like a knife. We had women out here the other day who talked about living on the minimum wage, what it means to raise a family on $8,500 a year. We had a woman go through her bills. She had her bills: How much she paid for rent, how much she paid for health care, how much she paid for groceries. She said, ``You know, at the end of the month I always have to put three bills aside because I cannot pay them.'' She said, ``My son hurt his hand in football. We went to the emergency room. They gave me a bill for $1,500 after he was treated.'' She said, ``I will never pay that bill.'' The people of this country are responsible. They want to work. They want most desperately to raise their children to be productive citizens. This bill, more than anything we will do in this Congress, gives those American families and those parents and those children the ability to do what they desperately want to do. Two years from now, $1,800 more than they are able to earn today will make their lives better, and allow them to meet their most important and fundamental human responsibility, which is to raise their children to be productive citizens. Mr. Speaker, Republican or Democrat, conservative, liberal, or moderate, please vote for this bill for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to express my personal sadness at the loss of 229 passengers and crewmembers, as a 747 airplane bound for Paris crashed into the Atlantic Ocean last night. It is hard to even find words for the pain and confusion and grief that I feel and that all of us feel. I am especially concerned that some crewmembers and passengers might be from my own town of St. Louis. But we do know from news reports that wherever they came from, the victims include schoolchildren, and parents with children left behind. This is a time for all Americans to come together, and grieve together, to realize that while there may be no way to make sense of this kind of tragedy, no way to find meaning in its loss, it is a reminder of how precious our lives and our community really are. On behalf of the Congress, I can only say that we are committed to finding the facts that lay behind this profound tragedy. In the meantime, my heart goes out to the families and friends of those aboard flight 800, and those still waiting to learn if a friend or a loved one may have been on board. Their loss is our loss, and we stand with them in this terrible and difficult time.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a statement I have received today from Vice President Gore. This week marks the 40th anniversary of the historic legislation that created our nation's Interstate Highway System. Tonight, at the Zero Milestone Marker on the Ellipse, there will be an event to honor the four visionary Americans who made it possible: President Dwight Eisenhower; Congressman Hale Boggs; former Federal Highway Administrator Frank Turner; and my hero, my mentor , one of Tennessee's finest sons and one of America's greatest Senators . . . my father, Senator Al Gore Sr. The Interstate Highway System has meant so much to our country. Its creation led to an unprecedented period of national growth and prosperity. It increased safety and dramatically reduced traffic fatalities. And it enhanced our national defense and security. The Interstate Highway System has literally changed the way we work and even the way we live. But it has done something else, too--something that can't be measured by statistics or dollar signs. The Interstate Highway System unified our great and diverse nation. As President Clinton has said, it ``did more to bring Americans together than any other law this century.'' And by so doing, it gave our citizens--and still gives our citizens 40 years and about 44,000 thousand miles later--the very freedom that defines America. Inherent in our Bill of Rights--whether the freedom of religion or press--is the freedom of mobility . . . to go where we please, when we please. Families driving to our national parks on vacation, mothers coming home from work, fathers taking their children to baseball games . . . all depend on the Interstate Highway System--a system that has paved the way not only to the next destination, but to opportunity itself. A highway to opportunity--that is America. And that is the freedom, I am proud to say, made possible in part by my father's dedication. I'm equally proud to continue that tradition--inspired by him--by working to connect all Americans to the 21st century's highway to opportunity, the information superhighway. I was always amazed how the voice that called me to the dinner table or reminded me to do my homework could be the same voice that argued so eloquently in the Senate for what can only be described as the greatest public works project in the history of the United States of America. And on this, the 40th anniversary of that accomplishment, I would like to thank my father, Senator Al Gore, Sr. On behalf of all Americans, I would like to thank him for the Interstate Highway System that, in his words, is truly an ``object of national pride.'' And I would like to thank him, personally, for teaching me both what it means to be a dedicated public servant and a dedicated father.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend of mine, and a fellow Missourian, who dies this week after a lifetime of service to his country and to his community. Of course we are talking today about our dear friend, Representative Bill Emerson. Bill's passing is a tremendous loss for me personally and for all of us who came from his State. We worked very closely over the years, and I always knew him as a man of quiet peace and decency to every person that he ever met. He was simply one of the finest human beings to ever pass through these halls. How he did love this institution of the House of Representatives in which he spent most of his life. But his passing is also a tremendous loss for the entire U.S. Congress. He was someone who could always reach across the aisle and work with both Democrats and Republicans for the sake of his beloved Missouri and the entire country. He had more accomplishments than we have time today to list, like his dedication at home to improving Highway 32 or fighting for a new bridge across the Mississippi River, or just fighting for his constituents, in so many ways. All of this will serve as monuments to his life and to his work. We all came to respect Bill's levelheadedness, even in the most tumultuous debates. His courage in the face of his illness is something that will stay with all of us for our entire lives. He missed only five votes in this Congress. His was a record of constant and consistent achievement. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join all of us in a celebration of the life of Bill Emerson. His mark on this institution will forever be remembered. Our thoughts and our prayers and our wishes are today with his dear family, his dear friends, and all the loved ones who so much grieve today his passing.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in a unanimous way for this resolution. I commend my friend the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Eva Clayton] for working so hard to bring this resolution to the floor. I commend my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] for being a sponsor and being one who has made this bipartisan. There is no more dastardly act than burning a place of worship, and the offense is even greater when racial hatred is involved, as it is in many of these cases. It is very important tonight that all of us, Republican, Democrat, from every part of this country, with one voice say tonight that these acts are morally reprehensible and wrong and must end. I have no idea why these things are happening. I am sure none of the rest of us do. I assume racial hatred and hatred lies at the core of these acts. This had stopped and did not go on for years and years because there was a sense in this society that this was inappropriate behavior. Perhaps the dialog on some of our radio shows, or something, is making it possible for people to believe that we can act out our hatred by the violence that is represented in these acts. The President has spoken out, and now it is entirely necessary and appropriate that every Member of this body tonight say unequivocally to the people of our country that these acts must end. And we will take every action that is necessary in the days ahead to make sure that whatever laws need to be changed are changed, to see that every person who is responsible in any way for any of these burnings is brought swiftly to justice. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends for bringing this resolution, and I urge every Member to raise their voice, not only tonight but in their district and in their communities to stop these dastardly acts.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Earl Blumenauer, be permitted to take the oath of office today. His certificate of election has not arrived, but there is no contest, and no question has been raised with regard to his election.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans alike--as we welcome the newest Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Earl Blumenauer of Portland, OR. As we all know, Earl comes to Congress with big shoes to fill. He's following in the footsteps of our former colleague, Ron Wyden, now the junior Senator from Oregon. For 15 years, Ron devoted himself to the people of Portland. His service and effectiveness will certainly be missed in the people's House. But I think the people of the Third District of Oregon have chosen a remarkable replacement in Earl Blumenauer--for they have chosen a man who has spent his entire life building his community, and bringing Portland's common sense to Portland's problems. Earl had a passion for public policy at a very young age, testifying before Congress while he was still a college student. And after finishing school and working briefly in education, Earl became the youngest person ever elected to the Oregon Legislature, at 23 years old. After three terms in his State's legislature, two as county commissioner, and three more on Portland's City Council, Earl has shown that his dedication to local solutions could have a national impact. He's already recognized as a leader on urban environment and transportation policies. He's been a champion of reasonable, thoughtful land use; aggressive recycling; and the kind of light rail that has worked so well throughout the Portland region. No wonder Earl won the support of prominent Republicans as well as Democrats in his election bid. So I'm delighted to welcome him to Congress--to serve the people of Portland, and all Americans. I expect that his vision and values will contribute a great deal to our debates, and to the Nation's problems.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, so that we can rein in some of the excesses of the Republican budget, and stand up for working families for change. The fact is, when we talk about the budget, we're not talking about a bunch of numbers and spreadsheets. We're talking about real people's lives. We're talking about the elderly woman in my town of St. Louis, scraping by on Social Security, counting pennies at the end of the month--and already hard-pressed to survive the deep Republican cuts in Medicare. We're talking about the young couple that is trying desperately to save for their children's education, and for their own retirement. We're talking about the families that can no longer care for their parents and grandparents, but can't afford the $40,000-dollar-a-year price tag of a nursing home without any help. It's no secret that I strongly opposed this Republican budget, because it heaped all the budget cuts on those seniors and families-- carving up Medicare and jacking up the premiums; cutting into education and college loans; paring back nursing home assistance to lavish more tax breaks on people who don't need them. But today, we have a chance to help the seniors, children, and families who should be the foundation of any budget proposal: To prevent some of the deep cuts in education, at a time when we need more education, not less of it; to protect seniors on Medicare from being overbilled by their health plans and providers, when many of them just don't have that extra money; To preserve the standards that say your whole family doesn't have to go bankrupt to put your parents in a nursing home; and to do more to protect the clean air and clean water and environmental decency that are central to America's health and safety. This bill would tell the Committee on the Budget negotiators that they have to back away from the House Republicans' radicalism on those crucial issues, and toward the greater reason and moderation of the U.S. Senate. The point of this bill is very simple: America's hard-working families matter more than any special-interest lobbyist. The House Republicans' dangerous budget policies and Medicare cuts-- already vetoed twice by the President--don't deserve another revival. And together, we can start to make this a budget that actually works for working people. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for this motion--to protect seniors on Medicare, and preserve nursing home standards, and secure education and the environment. Even these changes won't make the Republicans' budget perfect, but it will send an important message. That today, this Congress votes for families, for a change. Support this motion to instruct.